The killings last week in La Isla, California, in which four men and two women were killed by the scion of a wealthy Hollywood family, cannot be ignored or explained away. With an eye to posterity and potential infamy, the killer left a record of YouTube videos, well-documented forum accounts and most glaringly, a 141-page sprawling manifesto which outlines his reasons for going on a massacre and taking his own life. Common to all these digital remnants is the thread of a sickening and all-consuming hatred of women and a strong sense of ownership over the female sex.
He imagines a world in which women are confined to concentration camps, where he has a godlike power over their breeding and usage. In his last video before the spree, he claims that his goals are to “slaughter every blonde slut” he sees and to “punish” women for not being attracted to him. Clearly, misogyny of a particularly virulent kind is the motivation for this murder – a motive the killer clearly and repeatedly states. This was about control of women, this was about power, this was about punishing women for their choices.
This concept was even understood by the monstrosities of the “manosphere” crowds, from whom we have heard that all this could have been avoided had the killer possessed game, or if women weren’t such bitches, and who have warned that more murders will be forthcoming. The root cause — the desire to control, to possess, and to dominate women and a hatred of their autonomy — couldn’t be more apparent, right?
Wrong. The murderer, rather than being tagged as a PUA Hater, MRA extremist, or misogynist, is instead being presented to us as “troubled,” as if anyone who goes on an unjustified killing spree can be considered sane. Suddenly, his high-functioning Aspergers becomes the smoking gun, while his hate is pushed aside and becomes irrelevant. “He can’t be a misogynist,” we’re told, “he killed four men.” Clearly his failure to accomplish his stated goals renders them entirely moot.
Rest assured, if the killer had been a Muslim and had left dozens of YouTube videos extolling Sharia law, purdah, or advocating for jihad, we’d be hearing about the ‘sword verses’ ad nauseum, while vigilantes clobbered anyone with a turban. If he could be traced to Islamist forums, or to a radicalizing trip to Yemen, we’d have no problem assigning blame to an ideology and demanding blood in recompense.
The difference between our massive overreactions towards a foreign ideology and our overwhelming ‘meh’ towards the USCB killer’s blatant misogyny illuminates what we feminists have long known and what the #yesallwomen hashtag so eloquently expresses: that misogyny is not an unfamiliar ideology in America. Rather, it is the default – a deeply familiar and ingrained mode of thought that animates much of our discourse and behavior.
The murders at La Isla, then, are a difference in magnitude, but not kind, from the same sort of violence and hatred that is expressed each and every day against women in public and private. The murderer’s twisted hatred of women, of himself for being “involuntarily celibate” (or, in PUA parlance, “incel”) of not getting the sex he was told he deserved — these are merely the thwarted desires of the friend-zone brigade writ large. His actions were the dark conclusions of a culture that is choking on hackneyed phrases of nice guys getting the girl, of a place where “blue balls” are still, inexplicably a thing, and where women’s clothing is seen as an invitation.
Our culture is one where rape threats invariably accompany a woman’s strong opinion — whether that’s about video games or rape culture itself — and where “no” is a negotiation, not an absolute. The massacre in La Isla, and indeed, all the manifold forms of violence, intimidation and coercion aimed at women, are not freak occurrences, but everyday events. It’s time we put an end to this social disease, once and for all. The first step in doing so? Let’s call it what it is: misogyny. Not extremism, not “crazy,” not isolated incidents — misogyny.
Thank you for sharing this post. It’s an ugly topic, but important for people to talk about.
Reblogged this on Nina Trema and commented:
Because misogyny kills people
It’s not misogyny, the guy was messed up in the head. His character was too unattractive to women and he didn’t know how to deal with it, so he got mad because he felt attraction from attractive women was due to him, but he felt he had nothing in his power to make that happen, to make that reality,.. and so rather than feeling humble or more so just pissed with himself rather than with women and life/society in general (‘misvitagynist’), and getting to work on himself to make things right with his character and perspectives, he felt the need, in his mentally ill mind, to some how dominate over a women to have his sexual-passion ‘needs’ met,… like a rapist in a way. Not that a rapist necessarily dislikes women/is a misogynist,.. but just doesn’t know how to have mutually desirable intimacy with women.
I think ‘feminists’ just like to feel like ‘victims’, and hence being on the lookout to apply the label ‘misogynist’ wherever they can,… hyper sensitive. Some feminists might even be ‘misandrogynists’.
Someone who “imagines a world in which women are confined to concentration camps, where he has a godlike power over their breeding and usage” and who aims to “slaughter every blonde slut” (his words) is clearly showing “feelings of hating women or a belief that men are much better than women” and, as a consequence, falls into the definition of MISOGYNIST.
This does not prevent him from being a ‘misvitagynist’: a person can hate more than one thing (himself, society, women, cats) at the same time.
As regards feminists, a feminist is defined as a person who believes that “women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way”, which is in contrast both with hating men or considering them inferior to women (being a ‘misandrogynists’) and with the desire of victimhood.
In fact, someone who believes women are better than men will not want gender equality, but women to rule over men. Political, economical and social equality is funded on the idea that men and women are of equal value as persons: if one thinks one of the sexes is better than the other (or if one hates only one of the sexes), that person will not embrace gender equality so he/she won’t be a feminist. In other words, if you hate men, then you can’t be defined a feminist.
Since females have less power due to patriarchy and feminists want men and women to have the same amount of power, they need to empower women in order to achieve equality; this does NOT imply they want men to have less power or they hate men.
This does not mean of course that misandrogynists do not exist, but only that they’re not feminist, because according to the definitions, a person can either be a feminist or a misandrogynist and not both at the same time.
The definition of feminist is in contrast with the desire of victimhood, too. Data tell women suffer gender discrimination and gender violence much more than men, which shows equality has not been reached yet. Since feminists want equality, there’s no doubt they desire the end of gender violence, which implies they want women to stop being victims of crimes. This means they want victimhood to come to an end, so the supposed idea that they like being victims it’s illogic.
They don’t even like the word ‘victim’ itself. In fact it suggests the idea of defeat, helplessness, passiveness, which are all things feminists are fighting coherently with their goal of empowering women and helping them feel strong and safe. This is why they prefer to use the words ‘survivor’ or ‘overcomer’ instead of ‘victim’.
I don’t understand how the fact that a person aims to “slaughter every blonde slut” is not enough for you to call that person a misogynist (which he is anyway) while no fact at all IS enough for you to suppose “some feminists might even be ‘misandrogynists’”, which is illogic and incoherent with the definition of feminism.